PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 957, 4 July 1890, Page 1 (Supplement)

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WEDNESDAY, JULY 2. The Speaker took the chair at 2.30, ADJOURNMENT. Sir Frederick Whitaker moved, in consequence of what was going on in another place, that the Couuoil should at once adjourn. Sir George Whitmore rose to object to a continuance of this practice. It was, no doubt, a time honoured custom here, but it was not followed in the House of Lords nor anywhere else, so far as ha could learn, and he saw no reason why it should continue in force in New ZeaGnd any longer. He could quite understand that the Government would not like to undertake large questions because they were on their trial, but he failed to see that that was any reason why every question should be put off. ' He thought they would do well to do away with a practice that was entirely opposed to the interests of the Colony. There was on the Order Paper a measure of his own that was purely a question of policy upon which they should .be instructed by the Government, and he could easily understand that the Government would decline under the circumstances to entertain a discussion on that Bill. But there were other Bills that had nothing to do with this or any other Government, which they ought to push forward as far as they could, as otherwise they might not pass this session. The Council was not supposed to know what took place in another Chamber, and except where the Government said they could Dot guide the discussions of the House he saw no reason for delaying the business. On this point he was speaking entirely his own views, but he hoped the good sense of the Counoil would put an end to the practice of adjourning, leaving it to the Government to say what Bill they could take and what they could not ; and he also trusted they would go on with their Committees as usual. While not opposing the motion for adjournment, he would give notice of motion that the Coucoil would not adjourn on that or future occasions when a vote of confidence was pending in another place. Sir F. Whitaker rather agreed with the remarks of his friend Sir G. Whitmore, and he would like to see some arrangement made by which business could be gone on with. At that Bitting, however, the benches were rather empty, members of the Counoil not anticipating that anything was coming on, but he would be willing to support his hon friend in his notice of motion.' Motion for adjournment carried, and Sir G, Whitmore’s notice of motion accepted for next sitting. The Council rose at 20 minutes to 3. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, JULY 2. The Speaker took theohair at 2.30. WANT OF CONFIDENCE DEBATE. Mr Kerr, resuming the debate on the motion for Committee of Supply and Mr Ballanoe’s amendment thereto, condemned the Government for not putting up man to man in the debate, and said it was not “ what he called fair shooting.” (Laughter.) He offered to sit down if the Government would put up some one to reply to Mr W. P. Reeves. He regretted the Premier’s illness, believing the Colony could ill afford to lose such a man, and said when another

Premier was ill before he was very badly j treated ; nasty questions were asked and he ? was refused a pair. In the present case the other members of the Ministry were treating the Premier badly, and he thought they should not have a Premier who could not take his place in the House. He accused the Government of holding back subsidies from local bodies. With respect to loud settlement, he said the concessions the Government had given to the Midland Railway Company were praetlcaliy locking up the Nelson province. The Onmnanv were real! v playing with the Government, and, he understood, thought of throwing the Nelsou end up altogether. He twitted the Colonial Secretary and other members of the Ministry with going about saying to members “What do you want ? ” and said he himself had replied, “ What have you got to give ?” If you were not a supporter of the Government it was “ God help your chance of getting anything.” Why only that morning he went to the Government himself (laughter) to ask for a road which the people of his district U.. 4. 1 1 1 J A uuu uo utua u uuiufe. uo vvuuiu gou it, - He accused some members of ' ‘ talking on one side and Bpeaking on the other ” laughter), and generally condemned the general. ar.d departmental administration of the Government. He believed that- just through sympathy—a false sympathy—mauy members would not vote against the Government who otherwise would. Between the Bank of New Zealand and the Union Company, the country was being ruined. He called on the Native Minister to explain - 'tie Rotorua purohase, seeing that it was generally asserted that the Bank of New Zealand compelled the purchase. Mr Hobbs presumed it was quite legitimate. for the Opposition to make a demon, s ration, but the question was whether Mr Ballance, , if he carried this amendment, oauid carry it into effect. He? did not mink so. The revenue of the country would •® greatly decreased by the abolition of the property.tax, and members should ,not prate about doing away with that tax unless they Were prepared with a substitute in revenue. His own idea was that they should "e 1 ’ business of the couutry done as quickly as possible, and get ready for the elections, for this amendment, it was quite a bogus . IX/s 9 •*«»■»'* ouvit n nnuv wa wvuuCtCuCv

motion fall so fiat. The amendment was one that ho entirely agreed with, but they knew it was insincere.

THE DIVISION.

The question was then put, that the words “ the Speaker do now leave the chair, in order that the House may go into Committee of Supply,” should stand part of the question (as against Mr Ballanoe’s amendment). Following is the division list:

Ayes, 38. —Messrs Allen, Arthur, Bruce, Bryce, Cowan, Dodson, Fergus, Hall, Harkness, Hislop, Hobbs, Hodgkinson, Humphreys, Izard, Lawry, Macartbur, M. J. S. Mackenzie (Mount Ida), Marchant, McGregor, Mitchelson, Moat, Monk, Newman, O’Conor, Peacock, Rhodes, Ross, Russell, Samuel, Saunders, Seymour, W. D. Stewart (Dunedin West), Tanner, R. Thompsou (Marsden), T. Thompson (Auckland North), Whyte, Wilson, Withy. Noes, 32. —■ Messrs Ballance, Barron, Blake, Buxton, Cadman, Duncan, Fish, Fitchett, Fitzherbert, Fraser, Goldie, Grey, Guinness, Hutchison, Joj’cs, Kelly, Kerr, Lance, Larnaoh, Loughrey, J. McKenzie (Waihemo), Moss, Perceval, R H. J. Reeves (Inangahua), E. Richardson (Kaiapoi), Smith, W. J. Steward (Waimate), Taylor, Turnbull, Verrall, Walker, Ward. Majority against Mr Ballance’s amendment, 6.

Differences appear to have arisen between the whips as to the pairs. The Government whip’s list is as follows : —For Committee of Supply, Messrs G. F. Richardson and Anderson ; against, Messrs Feldwiek and Grimmond. The Opposition whips supply this totally different list :—For, Messrs Valentine, G. F. Richardson, Anderson, AtklnsoD, Carroll, Beetham. Fulton, Taipua ; against, Messrs W. P. Reeves, Feldwiek, Grimmond, Seddou, BrowD, Fisher, Jones, TaiwhaDga. They make up the total number of members thus :—Voted, 70 ; paired, 16 ; did not vote, 7 ; Mr Mills (away on leave), and the Speaker ; total, 95. The Government whips state that the following members of their party neither paired nor voted ; Sir Harry Atkinson and Messrs Beetham, Buchanan, Carroll, Fulton, Hamlin, T. Mackenzie, Ormond, Pyke, Menteatb, Taipua, and Valentine ; and that the Opposition members who did not pair or vote were Messrs BrowD, Parata, Fisher, Grimmond, W. P. Reeves. Seddon, and TaiwhaDga. The Speaker and Mr Mills, with the four pairs, would make nn the total of 95.

■ Mr Fish, who rose after the division had been taken, said the Opposition had every reason to be gratified with the result of the division. He reproached the Government with having allowed a strong impeachment against them to pass uixObaileuged (C'-"'66ro) y it was their duty to have stood up ana replied to the charges which had been made against them. (Mr Scobie Mackenzie : The Rouse has said there was no impeachment.) Mr Fish contended that there was, and that Ministers had neglected their duty. Proceeding to discuss the Financial Statement, be said there was nothing in it worthy of the name of a policy, and nothing statesmanlike. He questioned whether the Government had done as much as it coukl in the way of retrenchment, instancing recent appointments to the Native and Public Works Departments as proof of what he said, and also the proposed additional defence expenditure. He admitted the assiduity and generally good administration of Mr Richardson, but doubted, after hearing the remarks of various members, whether there was not a loose joint somewhere. The only policy indicated in the Statement were the proposals for settlement of land and for the acquisition of Native land, both of which he disapproved. He objected to the property-tax, though he gave a vote against it last year, against his convictions, to save the Government. As a Protectionist, he did not look with aversion on the primage duty, but thought it might be used as a substitute for the property-tax. He proceeded to censure the Public Accounts Committee for taking the power to themselves of reoommending an advance to t,hn New Plymouth Harbour Board. In the appointment of the Railway Commissioners the Government had, in hiß opinion, broken faith. Touching the construction of the Ministry, he held it impossible for them to cairy on while the Premier was away from the House, and said that the other members of the Ministry had treated him unkindly in allowing him to go on in this way. For all political purposes the Government was dead, and the question —which he answered in the negative—was whether the House would be satisfied with

the Ministry who sat on the Treasur* 7 Benches ? He was prepared to give supplies to the Government to allow them to goto the country at once, but not otherwise. Mr Fish quoted an article in the New Zealand Herald disapproving what had been done with respect to the Premiership, and Mr Hislop raised a point of order, but the Speaker ruled that the extract could be read, seeing that it did not touch on what was done in the House. Mr Fish concluded a long speech by saying that he regretted the step he had compelled to take, but felt he had done what he conside-ed was his duty, and would leave his constituents to decide whether he had done right. Mr Peacock said it waß refreshing to hear Mr Ballance talking about retrenchment in view of the attitude that gentleman’s Government took in the matter, while the present Government had effected £290,000 of retrenchment. He the light credit should be given to the Government for what they did in that direction. Mr Ballance, by his own showing, would not do away with the proi— i i l _...u {jolvj i-vm, uuu uuuiu .....a is, giving exemptions for improvements, which, in most cases, would msan relieving the mortgages. He (the .speaker) maintained the legitimacy l of tilo surplus, uuu thought it nil the

more ungracious of Mr Ballance to cast doubt upon it because it was to pay off the deficiency of his Government that the primage duty was imposed. The Statement would, he believed, do good in the Old Country. He pointed out that Mr Ballance himself inaugurated the system of purchasing Native Lands which he now found fault with. With respect to Mr Ballance’s amendment, he would have supported it if it had contained some definite proposal for substituting other revenue for the propertytax. He advocated that the Parliament should be allowed to dissolve by effluxion of time, and the new one meet next year. The usual adjournment was taken at 5.30.

EVENING SITTING. Mr Bryce, resuming the debate at 7.30, said Mr Ballauce’s amendment placed him in considerable difficulty. He had intended, and still intended, to criticise the financial proposals, but he thought it his duty to oppose any want-of-confidence motion moved by Mr Ballance and supported by his party, let the consequences be what they might. He admitted the fluency and effect of Mr Bsllance’s speech, but did not think that otherwise the speech was worthy of the hon gentleman’s capacity. The hon member showed conclusively to his own mind that there was a deficiency, and then went on to say that the revenue must be decreased. His whole practice and conduct showed Mr Ballance to be the last person who ought to advocate retrenchment. Even his speech showed that, for he did not touch upon retrenchment at all. The hon gentleman taunted the Government with having a Premier outside the House ; but might it not be said with equal justicer.hat the leader j of the Opposition was outside the House 1 (cheerß), and was it not equally presumable that the amendment had been put into Mr Ballance’s hands, and that he had forgotten, when propounding it. to touch the main question? Dealing with Mr W. P. Reeves’ epeech, Mr Bryce said it was exclusively a Canterbury speech. (Hear, hear.) He gave the hon member every credit for a patriotic belief that the revenue in future would fall short of the demands upon it, in contradiction to the expression of the leader cf the Opposition and to the amendment. Referring to the Financial Statement, Mr Bryce said it must be generally admitted to be a document of unusual ability and likely to be a valuable document; it went far to show that the Treasurer's intellect up to the point of exhaustion was, as he had said, as clear as ever. It he were a member of the Opposition - which he was thankful to say he was not—(Opposition cheers) —he should still give that credit to Sir Harry Atkinson, tt__ *- —: u. i iJ .1.. j —.to .1 go>o s came view of the Colony as the Statement did, though he admitted that one who knew how to read it would, be able to gather a fair impression of the condition of the Colony. What he was going to speak upon—and he might say what would be considered averse to the Government was the general policy of the country ; and he should treat Ministers as the present exponents of that policy, though he believed they had gone farther in the direction of good Government than any others. He referred first to the effects of the borrowing policy on the country, under which the House became a great board of works, and said he wanted to establish this, that we were on the eve of a very great and important change. Consequently it was necessary that the people should know as much as possible about the condition of the Colony. With respect to the assurance that the Go. vernment did not intend to recommend a resumption of ordinary borrowing, he pointed out.that that statement wa3 made in connection with the settlement of Crown lands, the one purpose which would, if any would, supply a good ground for borrowing. In the peroration also there was a distinct provision against resorting to borrowing. (Mr Fisher : Page 4). Mr Bryce said he was coming to that. So much for words ! The policy of the country, in his opinion, was leading straight to another loan, ((dear, hear.) At the best we weregoinsr straight toward another loan ; at the worst we were going to borrow in an indirect way, which was even more objectionable. (Cheers.) As to the surplus, he did not think it was a surplus. (Opposition cheers.) He did not think Opposition members should cheer him until they heard him out. As a matter of account, he did not deny it, but as a matter of reality, looking at the future as well as the present, he denied it. The Treasurer reminded them that provision must be made for services still chargeable on the balance of the loans if we were to have a sound finance, but the manner in which we were to arrive at that sound finance was not shown, for no provision wns made. He admitted that the surplus could not exist long, and strictly speaking did not exist at all. ■ It existed because charges which, if we were to have a sound finance, Bhould be charged upon consolidated revenue were oharged i against loan. In Part 1. of the Public , Works Fund (£258,000 voted last year, and £167,000 expended),’ the expenditnre should i be oharged against the consolidated i fund. Probably the expenditure this year » would be about £,150,000, and the Treasurer told them that the loan money was ex- ■ hausted, so that it mast be charged on i the consolidated fund next year. He com- ■ plained that the means of attaining that > happy end were not set forth. In the face I of that it was idle to talk of a surplus, and > still more idle to move snob amendments as l those which had that day bsen disposed of. i The land fund, it was dear, was insolvent, ' and had been so for the last five years, seeing that it had achieved a deficiency of ; £262,000 during that period. He contended that it would be reasonable to take last year’s land fund deficiency of £34,000 from 1 I '*uw Aivmnuiw* «v>u vuyiu vuaii

no more loan money would be available for land settlement, and in the face of that he did not eee how Mr Ballance could have moved his amendment—in the face of the fact, shown by himself, that the revenue was insufficient. As he said, the land fund was insolvent; yet it was calmly,proposed to withdraw a large asset from it by setting apart land fer purchasing Native lands ! That a fund in such a position as this was should bej asked to set aside about £30 ; 000 a year was like cutting a piece off the top of the blanket, well knowing that a piece would have to be sewn on the bottom of it. As to raising money on deDentures, and the issue of deficiency bills, be emphatically preferred a direct loan. If the Colony was prepared for drastio retrenchment, such as was indicated by the amendment, then we must have it; but the Colony would greatly have to modify its expenditure before that could be done. If the public insisted on retrenchment, then let all public men put the position as clearly as possible before the people, and inform them of it—to go in for a direct loan in order that the real position might be faced. Be spoke in no despondent tone of the future of the Colony, for he believed that it was increasing its material wealth and progressing to a sounder condition ; but he did believe that in all these matters the public should be fully informed and cautioned against the consequences. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion he repeated that in Bpite of his adverse comments he considered the present Government had gone further in the directipn of establishing sound government than any other. (Cheers.) Mr Hutchison described Mr Bryce as coming “ to mitigate the rampant dummyism on the Ministerial benohes,” and referred to Mr McGregor (who sat on the Ministerial Benohes) as not “a bou& fide squatter.” (Laughter.) Mr Bryce appeared to think that there was no room for further retrenchment, but he speaker) thought it could be shown that that was not so. Under the heading of “ contingencies ” they had £100,292, which could be reduced, he believed, by half. Then there were the defence vote and mail snbaldies, making in all about £IOO,OOO. As to what had been done before, he said “ let the dead past bury its dead j" they ought not to consider that there could be no more retrenchment. He pointed out that the number of persons in the Civil Service proper had increased largely while the population was decreasing. As to the Statement, he said it was not honest, and while it suggested that the financo of the Colony was sound, it introduced us to a future which the present occupants of the Treasury Benches were not able to grapple with. Attached to the ftmipmwnt must a taKla gntkJng forth tbit the expenditure of the present Government showed a decrease of £291,410 on that of the previous Government; but he would point out that the decrease in subsidies to local bodies meant an additional charge on the local bodies ; the defence expenditure was of a special kind when the late Government were in office, and the enormous decrease in rates on Crown lands meant a further charge on the local bodies. Taking these and some other items to which he referred, he eaid a balance was shown against the present Government of £42,625. As to retrenchment, he gave the Govern l ment credit for it, but asked whether any party going into office at the same time could have done less. He did not anticipate that much would be heard about the surplus after Mr Bryce’s remarks about it. Having asserted that the polioy of the Opposition was to resist any increased taxation or expenditure, Mr Hutchison went on to express a doubt whether the Colony would be prepared to undertake the expense of the partially.paid scheme of “ MajorGeneral Edwards from Hong Kong.” He protested against the Colony’s contribution to the Imperial squadron as a drain which had no justification. The Government were to blame, in his opinion, for sending delegates to the Federation Conference without consulting the leader of the Opposition as to the selection of the Beoond delegate. He went on to quote parts of the speeches made by New Zsaland delegates at the conference, causing a good deal of amusement by comparing the metaphors of Sir John Hall and Captain Bussell. His own idea was against federation, believing as he did that in the future history of Mew Zealand there was a chapter headed ‘‘lndependence.” Proceeding to discuss the financial experience of the Colony, he said he intended to move for a committee showing the relations between the Bank of New Zealand and Ministers during the last three years. The loan of JBBB was floated at a loss of £IIO,OOO, practically to assist the bank and on the strength of representations made in such a way as would, in a court of law, entitle the subscribers to recover. He charged the Government, also, with keeping money in hand, yielding no profit of any kind, for the benefit of the bank. As to the advances to the New Plymouth harbour, he pointed out that_in 1888 the House refused to pass Sir Harry Atkinson’s Harbours Act, but the Premier took upon himseif during the session to make an advance to the New Plymouth Board, and they were told that the law advisers to the Crown authorised it as legal; but they were now told that the la 7? officers did not think a similar subsequent advance was legal. He commented on the spectacle of the AgentGenera! proposing that the Colony should pay this money “as a purematter of expediency,” simply tnfiecaiva the English mone ,l -!ender, In spite of what w»b said in the Statement against borrowing, he contended that the attached tables clearly showed the necessity of raising money to meet engagements. Next year a balance of £1,203,000 against loans had to be met, and the following year a loan of £4,000,000 odd j in all, £5,600,000 in the t-■«!/> tmaae Vofc ***** Aa La lOAV «nw JVMSHI rjnt 4*WAV? 4139 V o UU

more borrowing ! Was it not most illusive ? The debentures issued in 1887 also had to be met—£4oo,ooo. No provision was made for loans to local bodies; the local bodies had been paying 5 per cent for these loans, of which 1 per cent was for sinking fund. That sinking fund had not been provided it had been collared by the Colonial Treasurer, who had put it in the surplus. (Laughter). All these things showed that a loan must be floated, and moreover, there would be some necessary railway extension, and a sum say £200,000 —for the New Plymouth Harbour Board. (Laughter.) Thus, within two years this Colony would have to finance eight millions. (Mr Hislop: No.) Mr Hutchison: It is enough to make a man ill. I marvel not at the absence of the Premier. (Laughter.) He went on to charge the Government with clinging to the bank for three years. At the hustings, he said, they would be impeached ; at the elections they would be condemned. (Cheers.)

The Minister for Public Works deprecated the personal tone of Mr Hutchison, and complimented Mr Ballance and Mr W. F_. Reeves on the absence of anything of the kind from their speeches. Replying to Mr Ballance, he said that £25,000 had been paid out of the land fund during the last two years for forest-planting and the settlement of old soldiers’ claims. With respect to the primage duty, £27,000 was paid out of the Treasury to assist the primage duty in wiping out the deficiency of the previous Government; so that even allowing for Mr. Ballanoe’s contention, there was in the Treasury a sum of £33,000 whioh represented the surplus. (Laugh, ter.) . If the House agreed to the reimposition of the duty it would die at the end of the period for whioh the Bill would fix it; if not, the onus of not continuing the duty for these special purposes would be on the House, not on the Government. As to school buildings, he said there was a very great demand for expenditure in that way. With respect to the looal bodies’ sinking fund, Mr Ballance’s Government, which inaugurated the Aot, never set aside the sinking fund. He defended the New Ply. mouth Harbour Board advance, and said the Public Accounts Committee had decided that no default should be made on the London market by local bodies when there was security for the advance. He reminded Mr Ballance that his own Government diverted money from the North Island Trunk Railway loan, and also with preventing the acquisition of Native lands by proceeding instead with the line. Mr Ballance’s Government had also used f.ho lAon fn* L>3 MWWgaum AMTCI, Mr Fergus spoke m a condemnatory tone of the manner in which the land was acquired from the Natives, but Mr Bruce, rising to an explanation, said the Natives had no complaints to make against the agents. Mr Fergus proceeded to explain that the Publio Works Department would be abolished as soon as possible, but must be partly retained until the expenditure of money on public works was stopped. He pointed out that the defence expenditure had been gradually reduced from what it waH under the late Government, and, with respect to the proposal that the Minister should have some control over education expenditure, said that Mr Ballance would cast a sixth of the cost on the struggling settlers. With property-tax exemptions, the late Government actually prevented them being made. He challenged Mr Ballance to bring down himself a proposalfor a tax on the unimproved value of land, in which case he might convince some of the young members, but not older oneß. As to land settlement, his eolleague had already answered what was said on that head. Mr Ballance objected to the appointment of an Assistant AuditorGeneral, which was actually made to keep open an office the hon member himself created. Referring to the population, Mr Fergus said people would always follow railway construction to a great extent; we in New Zealand had no extraneous aids to prosperity such as usually induced extensive immigration. Replying to Mr Bryce, he said he could not agree with that gentleman that the surplus did not exist because it did not provide for the future. The Statement referred simply to the past year, and clearly showed a surplus. He reminded the House that there were a number of necessary works to be provided for next year, and said the Government, in view of them, asked the House to give them the primage duty for another year. Members who denied the primage duty would thus not only be refusing these necessities, but would also be preventing education. Dealing with Mr Hutchison’s speech, the Minister said the hon member’s personalities were beneath notice—the business of the country could bo carried on without them, and without such references to financial institutions which might nob be in such a good condition as they once were. If the leader of the Opposition wished any inquiries it was his place to demand them ; and aB to Mr Hutchison, if that was the politician who was to rule the country in future, then God help the country ! (Cheers.) Major Steward oompared Mr Fergus’ speech to that of an advocate. He reminded the Houbb that the late Government’s defence expenditure was all made with the concurrence of the House, and on circumstances which justified it. He thought the Statement should have been prepared in a business like manner. He pomtsdout that the last speaker bad said the surpluswas £33,000, The Minister of Lands had put it at £6OOO, and Mr Bryce said there was no surplus at all, He censured the Government for the appointments they bad made, and said the question of a surplus was insignificant com. pared with the more important one of land settlement. He cjpOke si some length ill

condemnation of the land policy of the Government. The debate was adjourned at 11.55 on Mr Cowan’s motion, and the House rose.